frida_get_frontmost_app

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format and default behavior (device_id defaults to local device). However, it does not mention potential prerequisites, error conditions, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: a one-sentence purpose, then parameter and return details, and a short use-case note. No redundant words, and critical information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, return format, and platform relevance. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., active device connection) and error handling, but is otherwise complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'device_id'. The description compensates fully by explaining it is an optional Frida device id, where to obtain it (from frida_list_devices), and that it defaults to the local device. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation, and the resource 'frontmost app' is specific. The description explicitly states it returns {identifier, name, pid} and notes it's useful on iOS/Android to identify the currently visible app, distinguishing it from sibling tools like frida_list_apps or frida_get_device_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by stating the tool is useful for identifying the currently visible app on iOS/Android. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.